Robespierre Dbq

The French Revolution was based on an assortment of Enlightenment ideals. French philosophers, including Voltaire and Rousseau led the revolution leading up to the revolution, so to speak, coming up with progressive ideals as to government, social structure, and the nature of people. Indeed, the ideals which the revolution was fought in the name of progressed throughout France and, eventually, Europe. Though the revolution took wrong turns along the way, the ideals which it was based on never wavered. Even during the heart of his Reign of Terror, Robespierre spoke of a state where each citizen wants to do good by his country. This shows Robespierre with an unwavering commitment to the state, an ideal which came out of the Enlightenment. Though he may have carried out his beliefs in a gruesome and perhaps wrong way, his ideals were the same as the Enlightenment philosophers: make the state better for all to live in.

The Reign of Terror, was it justified? A wife beheaded, a revolution , and thirty-five to forty thousand people killed in the countryside alone. It was all happening in France, starting in the year 1789. A man named Maximilien Robespierre and his countrymen have decided that they dislike the current government system and overthrow it. They are successful and try to turn it to democracy, but in order to keep the power they end up having to execute nearly all government officials. Later, the counter revolutionists throw them over, so was Robespierre justified? The reign of terror was not justified because of the way the government treated their people, How they restricted the citizens rights, and finally how they treated their “criminals”.

He was a harsh critic of King Louis XVI and those who supported a monarchy. Robespierre continued to speak and write in opposition

The spark that set off the Reign of Terror can be attributed to the king’s attempted escape from France in 1791 (Document 6). It is impossible for people of the modern world to comprehend exactly what caused this mayhem simply because no one lived during that period. Regardless, the event left the nation in a state of shock and uncertainty. The National Convention was forced to make the difficult decision to place all of its power into an entirely new political branch, knowing that something different was needed to save France. Before he was chosen to run the Committee of Public Safety, Robespierre was revered for his courage and sheer determination. He ridiculed the notion that a monarchy could last and instead pushed for democratic reforms (Document 2). Robespierre spoke to the people of France with an air of confidence that quickly won them over. His morals were fundamentally based on the ideals of early enlightenment thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau. Both men asserted that man is good by nature but poisoned by society. Robespierre also believed that all men deserve to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law (Document 3). The central cause of the French Revolution was the nation’s lack of a strong military in the face of civil war and foreign invasion. Rebuilding the military was arguably the most significant advancement that occurred during the Reign of Terror. Robespierre created a law called the Law of Universal Conscription in an effort to propel the French military to a reasonable state. This law mandated all men between the ages of 18 and 40 to join the army. Additionally, women were called into service to make uniforms. Robespierre further ensured that his troops were well-fed and prepared to spring into combat at any moment by reserving the best bread for soldiers only. After decades of internal and external conflict,

Robespierre, the most famous French Revolutionary, believes “We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish…”(Document G). Began in 1789, the French Revolution began as an attempt to form a new government in France. This gruesome period was the Reign of Terror. This was where the people of France, which was consisted of peasants and workers and was led by Maximilien Robespierre, rallied for “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.” To put it differently, was the French Revolution necessary? In my opinion, the Reign of Terror in France was not justified based on the threats, methods, and ideals of the revolution.

Robespierre had intended to rid France of any people that were considered a threat to the revolution through the Reign of Terror, but his actions were not necessary for France to progress. His intentions to overthrow the monarchy under Louis XVI and replace it with a new utopian republic were reasonable because, with a reformed republic, he could establish the principle stating, “the ‘rights of man’ should extend to all men – including the poor, and the slaves in the colonies” (Linton). He relentlessly advocated for equality within the working class, also known as the sans culottes, and fought for the abolishment of rigid class systems between the three estates. This allowed for him to gain a positive reputation with civilians who were mistreated within the Third Estate and obtain reverence from the Jacobins. Robespierre’s first order of business to purify France and progress the revolution began with the trial of Louis XVI. Originally, it had been known that Robespierre “was for a long time a vehement opponent of the death penalty” (Linton), so it was unexpected when he began to advocate for the King’s death. His change of opinion occurred after witnessing how Louis had committed treason through attempting to escape an unstable France which branded him as a traitor to the revolution. In his speech arguing against allowing the King to be given a trial, Robespierre claimed “yes the penalty of death generally is a crime...it can be justified only in cases when it is necessary for the safety of individuals or the social body...Louis must die, because the country must live” (“Maximilien”). It was this trial that became the root to which Robespierre’s terror stemmed from. He speculated that “...in order to defend the Revolution against those who would destroy it, the shedding of blood was justified” (Linton). From here on out, his philosophy of the ends

As the Reign of Terror came into effect, triggering the most radical phase of the Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre was determined to reconstruct France as a new republican democracy. According to Robespierre, this system could only be achieved if every and all forms of resistance to the Republic were to be eradicated. He declared that anyone who did not support the revolution as radically as he did was a traitor, a threat to the country, and deserved to be executed.

In fact, he said that if you weren't Republican, then you weren’t even a French citizen. This means that he was now choosing who he would give rights to, and who he was calling the enemy. He was saying to either agree with him or that you were no longer a French citizen. These are the types of things that come from dictators, not people trying to make a Republic. Robespierre continuously made decisions that hurt the people and promoted himself. Eventually, the people had enough and killed him, but the damage had been done and the French Revolution was basically back to the monarchy it had been before. This proves how the Reign of Terror was unjustified, since it gave its citizens worse treatment than they got in the monarchy, as well as the fact that it was almost all to benefit

The denial of the right to overthrow a corrupt government is shown once more by the Document known as the “Law of Suspects”. This document states that “All suspected persons within the territory of the Republic and still at liberty shall be placed into custody...The following are deemed suspected persons: 1st, those who, by their conduct, associations, talk, or writings have shown themselves to be enemies of liberty...4th, public officials suspended or dismissed from their positions by the National Convention or by its commissioners and not reinstated…” (Law of Suspects (Modified) Handout). This document written by Robespierre is quite plainly stated that anyone who even seems like they don’t agree with the Revolution will be placed into custody. When a citizen is not given permission to freely express what they feel, the citizen no longer has the ability to overthrow the government that suppresses that ability in the first

The internal threats against France were minimal because when someone did disagree with the revolution they were punished and more than likely, executed. When these executions took place, people would see what would happen to them if they acted the same way. This shows that there was not many people that rebelled against the government; however, people still did, which is one of the reasons the number executions and murders was so high. People had a right to be angry with the government, nevertheless. Many citizens of France were drafted to the levee en masse, the military draft during the revolution. (Document C) They were very mad about this because they were forced to fight even if they didn’t agree with the method France was using to protect itself from internal and external threats. In Document D, a local government official from Western Europe sends a letter to the National Convention asking for more soldiers because the 3,000 men army wasn’t enough. In the letter, the official says that the men sent by the government have failed to stop the “rabble”. Adding to the many reasons the Reign of Terror was unjustifiable, this leads to the official asking if he can kill the men for not doing their job. Killing nearly 3,000 men because they cannot stop the multitude of soldiers is greatly insensitive. Robespierre overreacted when he believed that the internal threats were serious, because on the contrary, they made little

The French Revolution is arguably the bloodiest period in French history, with men such as Maximilien Robespierre leading the country into a situation of state sponsored terror. Originally being quite a liberal thinker inspired by the works of Rousseau, Robespierre quickly gained a reputation for being a radical throughout the course of the Revolution, especially during the Terror. Early on terror was justified as a means to root out foreign and domestic enemies of the Revolution, however; once the foreign threat had been taken care of it became increasingly difficult for Robespierre to rationalize his use of terror to bring about a supposed Republic of Virtue. In his speech, the “Justification of the use of Terror” which he presented to

Now in the revolution, the Reign of Terror was established as a governmental way to get rid of enemies of the revolution. The Terror established a revolutionary government, which was encouraged by two political groups: the Girondins and the Jacobins. The French government established the Committee of Public Safety to gain more military forces. Danton, a Girondin, ruled the committee until he was executed. Then Robespierre, a Jacobin, took over for Danton. In a speech given to the National Convention in 1794, Robespierre says, “To found and consolidate democracy…we must end the war of liberty against tyranny and pass safely across the storms of the revolution…what is the fundamental principle of the democratic or popular government…? It is virtue…virtue without terror is fatal; terror without virtue is powerless” (Speech by Robespierre in February 1794). Robespierre was trying to consolidate democracy by continuing the revolution through the Terror. Without the use of terror, we would not have virtue, which is what makes a government democratic. The terror was an effort to establish a democracy as we have in the modern era. As the revolution became more uncontrolled, revolutionaries who were not in support of the committee were executed by the guillotine, including Robespierre. After the Terror, a government known as the Directory

Maximilien Robespierre has always been known to be controversial and misunderstood. He was the face of the French Revolution. In accordance with the Jacobins, they controlled the time known as the Reign of Terror, due to their influence in the accumulation of murders of those opposed to the revolution. Reign of Terror was a symbolic time period within the French Revolution that involved corruption of power and influence and mass executions. With Robespierre at the forefront, he became one of the most important men in the Revolution. As soon as Maximilien Robespierre decided to react to enemies of the revolutions, mass execution being his choice of force; his implementation of the Reign of Terror was a villainous act striking those who

Robespierre was honestly working for the good of the people. He once stopped 75 Girondins from being tried for signing a secret protest against their leaders’ arrests, knowing they would be executed (Hampson 139). Much of the public understood and loved Robespierre. When he was finally arrested, the prison guard refused to hold him (Gaxotte 223). Instead of fleeing, he returned to Paris where a crowd of his followers congregated. He absolutely forbid them to fight for him, as they were planning (Geib). His altruistic efforts suggest some outside force caused the change in his allowing of the more brutal manner of reformation, later, when the many thousands of people were executed. Jean-Jacques Rousseau may have influenced Robespierre with his strong nationalist views, being an important, and influential role-model for Robespierre. It is said that Robespierre slept with a copy of Rousseau’s Social Contract next to him (Halsall). Rousseau thought that it was the greatest of all sins to continue in life when one believes there is a better way (Searle). Robespierre knew there was another way; a republic, free of the uncaring rule of powerful monarchs. This idea may have encouraged Robespierre to press for reformation at all costs.

It is an association of these first and last possibilities which make Ménétra's account so interesting. One can indeed consider that this extract perfectly fits within the Thermidorian anti-terrorist rhetoric used by revolutionaries after the fall of Robespierre. This can be described as a 'not me' rhetoric, focused on denouncing the role of Robespierre as the mastermind of the Terror, whilst maintaining that the Convention was coerced into action by him. Ménétra's testimony can thus be seen as an illustration of the Thermidorian response to the Terror. Moreover, this is an interesting account of 'la violence vue d'en-bas', as explained by Daniel Roche. Ménétra was not an important official or member of the Committee of Public Safety, but someone